Love v. State
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
| Writing for the Court | DAVIS, J. |
| Citation | 107 Fla. 376,144 So. 843 |
| Parties | LOVE v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 06 December 1932 |
144 So. 843
107 Fla. 376
LOVE
v.
STATE.
Florida Supreme Court, Division B.
December 6, 1932
Error to Circuit Court, Osceola County; Frank A. Smith, Judge.
P. L. Love was convicted of statutory arson, and he brings error.
Reversed for a new trial.
COUNSEL [107 Fla. 377] Johnston & Rogers, of Kissimmee, for plaintiff in error.
Cary D. Landis, Atty. Gen., and Roy Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
OPINION
DAVIS, J.
P. L. Love was indicted and convicted in the circuit court of Osceola county for the violation of section 1 of chapter 15603, Acts of 1931 (Ex. Sess.), relating to and defining the offense of statutory arson. The section under which the indictment was found reads as follows:
'Section 1. Arson.--First Degree. Any person who wilfully and maliciously sets fire to or burns or causes to be burned or who aids, counsels or procures the burning of any dwelling house, whether occupied, unoccupied, or vacant, or any kitchen, shop, barn, stable or other outhouse that is parcel thereof, or belonging to or adjoining thereto whether the property of himself or of another, shall be guilty of Arson, in the First Degree, and upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment in the State prison for not more than twenty years.'
Motion to quash the indictment was filed and overruled. The proposition advanced was that the section and chapter under which the defendant had been indicted was unconstitutional and void, in so far as it undertook to prohibit the defendant from burning his own property. [1]
But the statute is not susceptible to objection on the constitutional ground urged, because under it the mere burning, per se, of one's own property is not made a [107 Fla. 378] crime. It is the willful and malicious setting fire to, or burning, that constitutes the gravamen of the offense. A 'malicious' burning, that is, [144 So. 844] a burning or setting fire to property, would be such an act done with a condition of mind that shows a heart regardless of social duty and bent on mischief, evidencing a design to do an intentional wrongful act toward another, or toward the public, without any legal justification or excuse for the burning or setting fire to the property, even though it belonged to the perpetrator. An example of such an act of malicious burning would be to set fire to or burn one's own property to thereby accomplish an indirect injury to another, or to the public, without any real or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State, 45
...109 P.2d 404 (1941); State v. Pisano, 107 Conn. 630, 141 A. 660 (1928); State v. Lockwood, 1 Boyce 28, 74 A. 2 (Del.1909); Love v. State, 107 Fla. 376, 144 So. 843 (1932); State v. Dunn, Page 475 199 N.W.2d 104 (Iowa 1972); State v. Willing, 129 Iowa 72, 105 N.W. 355 (1905); Jillson v. Comm......
-
Jackson v. Edwards
...that is, 'on purpose'. See Mitchell v. Mitchell, 91 Fla. 427, 107 So. 630; Williams v. State, 92 Fla. 648, 109 So. 805; Love v. State, 107 Fla. 376, 144 So. 843. In the case last cited it was held that 'wilfully' setting fire to or burning would be such an act consciously and intentionally,......
-
Duke v. State
...1, 1931. 'Approved June 25, 1931.' See Secs. 7208(8), (9), (10), (11), Perm.Supp.1936 to C.G.L. This Act was held valid in Love v. State, 107 Fla. 376, 144 So. 843. The prior statute relating to arson was held to be invalid because it violated section 16, Article 3, or the State constitutio......
-
City of Jacksonville v. Shaffer
...See Queen Insurance Co. v. Patterson Drug Co., 73 Fla. 665, 74 So. 807, L. R. A. 1917D, 1091; Malsby v. Gamble, 61 Fla. 310, 54 So. 766. [107 Fla. 376] The nonsuit was entered by the city before the court delivered its charge to the jury, so we cannot say that the bare admission of the evid......
-
Brown v. State, 45
...109 P.2d 404 (1941); State v. Pisano, 107 Conn. 630, 141 A. 660 (1928); State v. Lockwood, 1 Boyce 28, 74 A. 2 (Del.1909); Love v. State, 107 Fla. 376, 144 So. 843 (1932); State v. Dunn, Page 475 199 N.W.2d 104 (Iowa 1972); State v. Willing, 129 Iowa 72, 105 N.W. 355 (1905); Jillson v. Comm......
-
Jackson v. Edwards
...that is, 'on purpose'. See Mitchell v. Mitchell, 91 Fla. 427, 107 So. 630; Williams v. State, 92 Fla. 648, 109 So. 805; Love v. State, 107 Fla. 376, 144 So. 843. In the case last cited it was held that 'wilfully' setting fire to or burning would be such an act consciously and intentionally,......
-
Duke v. State
...1, 1931. 'Approved June 25, 1931.' See Secs. 7208(8), (9), (10), (11), Perm.Supp.1936 to C.G.L. This Act was held valid in Love v. State, 107 Fla. 376, 144 So. 843. The prior statute relating to arson was held to be invalid because it violated section 16, Article 3, or the State constitutio......
-
City of Jacksonville v. Shaffer
...See Queen Insurance Co. v. Patterson Drug Co., 73 Fla. 665, 74 So. 807, L. R. A. 1917D, 1091; Malsby v. Gamble, 61 Fla. 310, 54 So. 766. [107 Fla. 376] The nonsuit was entered by the city before the court delivered its charge to the jury, so we cannot say that the bare admission of the evid......